Mary's Mosaic: Entering Peter Janney's World of Fantasy

[Tom Scully]

Saying that a car was "planted" and then saying, "Gad, it was a CIA operation!" What does that mean?

Jim, if you noticed, what Tom does is no different than what a person defending the government would do. There's a fine line between rigor and devil's advocacy and outright pro-government defense I think you should be more mindful of than you seem to be. Tom Scully is a person who refuses to answer where exactly he draws the line in his defense of FBI reports. He is endorsing and quoting reports that were the same source of the definition of Oswald from the Warren Report without recognizing how that taints the information. It scares me when I see credible researchers criticizing the flaws in Janney while using FBI reports and staying non-committal as to those reports and their credibility. Do you get what I mean here?

The planted car and its evidentiary significance was already explained in enough detail that it should be understood. The car was the weak link because it had to be planted because of its role in the set-up. That caused it to have no documentation or person that could be traced to it. A sure sign of a black op set-up (as Wiggins said) that can't be so casually ignored by anyone seriously looking at Mary Meyer's murder.


I've also never seen either you or Tom explain how there could be no fibers from Crump found on Mary Meyer during the forensic examination when the murder scene required close contact through dragging.

Let us review what is actually verifiable. It is Doyle-Yates serial posting about the his opinions of the Peter Janney novel's details for the past three years and four months with nothing linking him to Janney, his book, or to Janney's claims in the book; D-Y just does it. If you disagree and push back against D-Y's campaign, just as if you question his beliefs he posted in the Ralph Yates thread, D-Y posts that you seem (must be) a government agency defender, supporter, etc.....etc....

Within these "rules" invented and repeated by Doyle-Yates, author Janney, son of a CIA agent of elevated rank and nephew of US Army Secretary and General Dynamics Chairman Frank Pace, is above reproach no matter how many times actual evidence strongly supports that he is a disturbed (swears in a court filing that he is surrogate son of Mary Meyer) attention grabbing person uncommitted to accuracy in his speech or publications.

Is this accurate?

https://www.google.com/#q=%22mary%27s+mo...ed&tbm=bks

Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. ...

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1629143162
Peter Janney - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
The paperback edition of Mary's Mosaic has been updated and revised with a significant Post Script that focuses on Meyer's alleged assassin, who the author finally located and confronted in person in August 2012, as well as the ongoing ...

BTW, according to Janney, "CIA assassin" Mitchell was "missing" (I am given the impression, due to the reactions to my research re: "missing" Mitchell, that Simkin, Janney, Doug Horne, and Doyle-Yates are unhappy to learn the truth about Mitchell never being missing, after all!). The holes in Janney's "missing car" claims Doyle-Yates is impressed with, are also examined in this post I am excerpting only a small portion of.:

http://letsrollforums.com//showpost.php?...tcount=643
....

---

Uploaded on April 23, 2013, this is a must-see video for anyone interested in the Mary Meyer Murder Mystery and Peter Janney's book Mary's Mosaic:

[TABLE="class: tborder"]
[TR]
[TD="class: tcat, colspan: 2, align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: panelsurround, align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

.....A recent (April 11) presentation by Mary Pinchot Meyer "researcher" Peter Janney about....his new Mitchell findings!
There are no words to describe what's happening here: Janney is seriously(!) attempting to embed his bizarre 2012 "Mitchell identity" claims within the Official Story of the towpath murder...



This presentation/video is obviously meant as a revenge for Janney's embarrassing interview with Jim Fetzer of last year and to prepare his readers for the crap presented as "facts" about Mitchell in the coming revised version of Mary's Mosaic.

So let's have a closer look. The part about the towpath murder starts at 27.12.


At 32.40 during the description of Wiggins' testimony, Janney states that:
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] Wiggins was still fast on his feet. On hearing the shot, he had dashed across Canal Road toward the stone wall.
[...]Seconds before he got there, he heard a second shot. When he peered over the wall...
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

.....It would have taken Wiggins ('still fast on his feet') only about 3-4 seconds to arrive at the wall after the first shot.

Yet, this is the text on the screen shown by Janney during that part of his presentation:



Again, Janney dares to state here that it took Wiggins 10-20 seconds to arrive at the wall! Needless to say, this totally contradicts the data in the trial transcript (8-10 seconds). Janney has no other choice than "adapt" the timing in between the two shots, for otherwise it won't fit at all with the official version of the events on the towpath in between the two shots.

Once again, according to Janney, Henry Wiggins had to peer over the Canal Road wall. Yet, it was Janney himself who mentioned twice(!) in his own book Mary's Mosaic that this wall is only three feet high.......

.......Albeit, that Janney conveniently ignores the given fact in the Official Story that mechanic Bill Branch and a small group of reporters were actually present there at the time the Rambler disappeared...Mysterious indeed.........

From 38.50 on Peter explains all about his 2012 "new Mitchell findings."

At 39.16 you can even hear him say:
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] What we uncovered... [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

However, these "new Mitchell data" were definately found by Tom Scully last year. Scully posted them in this thread too.

Janney apparently "overlooked" these data, available in Google long ago. Although he referred to them on the sheet he showed during this part of his presentation, he didn't feel the need to credit Tom Scully for finding these new Mitchell data:



After all, these new findings by Tom Scully enabled Peter Janney to locate the CIA assassin of his beloved Mary Pinchot Meyer...so the story goes...

At 44.17 Janney tells his audience that this "William Mitchell" started to use the name "Bill Mitchell" in California.

The reason why Mitchell did that, according to Janney, is at 44.37 in the video:
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] Clearly, Mitchell does not want to be found.. [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

If so, why would he have made that all-important phone call to Damore in March 1993, confessing that he shot Mary on behalf of the CIA and that he used an alias at the time?

The researcher I've quoted directly above believes the JFK Assassination was a staged event. Although he is astute and demonstrates a strong ability to read and present actual inconsistancies in the claims of others that render their conclusions unlikely, he exhibits the same disconnect Janney and his 24-7 defender Doyle-Yates practice, none know enough to get to the conclusion they have reached, based on ?????????.